Illuminare is in alpha.

Expert-witness depth. Software-tool speed.

Walk into mediation knowing your numbers.

Illuminare turns timekeeping data into an interactive wage-and-hour exposure analysis — exposure totals, employee breakdowns, deposition candidates. Faster than a consulting firm engagement, deeper than a paralegal’s back-of-the-envelope pass.

Get Started →

Case exposure summary

Walker v. Sample Industries — Q1 2023 to Q4 2024

illustrative data

Potential Exposure

$423,500
73% of theoretical maximum

Theoretical Maximum

$580,000

If every shift had a violation

Employees Analyzed

142

Across 45,230 rows

Potential Violations

847

Across class period

Exposure by Type

Short meal period$232,925
Late meal period$127,050
No meal recorded$63,525
Excludes derivative penalties. §203 waiting-time, §226 wage-statement, and PAGA penalties are not computed in alpha. Under Naranjo v. Spectrum Security Services (2022), these may be recoverable and typically total 2–5× the meal-premium figure.

Find your representatives.

Cluster employees by exposure percentile and surface candidates for class-rep evaluation or individual deposition. Filter by segment to focus the analysis on the band of the workforce that matters at this stage of the matter.

Read the methodology →
Potential Exposure by Employee
EmployeeShiftsViolationsPotential ExposureSegment
EMP-104231289
$4,450
High Exposure
EMP-081729871
$3,550
High Exposure
EMP-029327554
$2,700
High Exposure
EMP-088426448
$2,400
Upper Representative
EMP-052124541
$2,050
Upper Representative
EMP-041230132
$1,600
Representative
EMP-036728328
$1,400
Representative
EMP-014921119
$950
Lower Representative
EMP-056118912
$600
Low Exposure
EMP-07031567
$350
Low Exposure

See the data before trusting the math.

Duplicate detection, coverage gaps, and segment validation surfaced before any analysis runs — so the exposure figure stands up to scrutiny on cross-examination, not just on first read.

Read the methodology →

Rows

45,230

Employees

142

Duplicates

1,847

payroll_2023_Q1-Q2.csv18,420 rows · Jan – Jun '23Clean
payroll_2023_Q3-Q4.csv14,210 rows · Jul – Dec '23847 duplicates
payroll_2024.csv12,600 rows · Jan – Dec '24Coverage gap
Coverage
Jan ’23 — Dec ’24

In a real matter.

Three illustrative scenarios — not customer quotes.

Plaintiff-side associate
Mediation in 48 hours.

A plaintiff-side associate has half a workday before a mediation. They upload the timekeeping production, run the analysis, and walk in with a citable exposure figure plus the Naranjo disclosure. The settlement conversation starts at the actual number, not a back-of-envelope estimate.

Surfaces used: Case Exposure Summary, Naranjo disclosure

Defense partner
Opposing certification.

A defense partner needs to push back on the named plaintiffs' typicality argument. They open the deposition-identification surface, filter to the high-exposure cluster, and surface the employees whose individual experience would deviate from the proposed class — quantified, with cluster context, citable in the opposition brief.

Surfaces used: Deposition Identification, percentile clusters

Litigation paralegal
Catch the gap before discovery does.

A paralegal reviewing a fresh timekeeping production catches a four-week coverage gap and 1,847 duplicate punches before any analysis runs. They flag both to opposing counsel ahead of the meet-and-confer; the production gets re-pulled cleanly the first time, not the third.

Surfaces used: Data Processing, coverage timeline

Ready to see your case data?

Get Started →